NII AMARKAI III & ORS v. NII OYENINAA TEIKO TAGOE
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ERIC K. BAFFOUR, ESQ.JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case centers on determining whether the 1st Plaintiff, who claims to be the acting Asere Mantse and Dzasetse of Asere, or the enstooled Nii Asere Boi VII, is the rightful holder of the acting Mantse position of Asere. The court, guided by rules from the High Court (Civil Procedure), the Courts Act, and the Chieftaincy Act, must decide if this dispute qualifies as a matter affecting chieftaincy and if it possesses the jurisdiction to hear the case. Previous rulings clarify that not all chieftaincy-related issues fall under this category but require specific examination of whether the core issue genuinely pertains to chieftaincy.
RULING
It is stated under Order 33 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 as follows:
“Where it appears to the Court that the decision of any question or issue arising in any cause or matter and tried separately from the main cause or matter substantially disposes of the cause or matter or renders trial of the main cause or matter unnecessary, it may dismiss the cause or matter or make such other order or give such judgment as may be just”.
Based on the above rule the court in the exercise of its discretion to moderate the trial to achieve effective and speedy justice and on a consideration of the pleadings and issues before the court invited the lawyers to address the court on the following questions posed to them:
1. Whether or not the determination of who is the Dzasetse and also the acting Mantse of Asere is not a cause or a matter affecting chieftancy.
2. If the answer to the question above is yes whether this court is clothed with jurisdiction to determine a cause or a matter affecting chieftancy
The court was minded to pose the above questions for answers due to the first claim of the Plaintiff endorsed on the writ of summons wherein it prays for:
A declaration that the 1st Plaintiff as Dzatsete and acting Asere Mantse has the right to use the Asere palace for the purposes of the Asere stool. Plaintiffs in their statement of claim contend in paragraph 1 that: “The 1st Plaintiff is the Dzasetse of Asere and acting Asere Mantse”. The Defendant in his statement of Defence respond to this allegation as follows:
“In answer to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the statement of claim Defendants state state that the 1st Plaintiff is the Dzasetse of Asere. He is not the acting Asere Mantse since there is a substantive Asere Mantse who is known as Nii Asere Boi VII who was enstooled in 2007”.
The denial of the claim that 1st Plaintiff is the acting Asere Mantse, in the reply of the Plaintiffs notes that even though there was installation of the said person but same had been challenged by the Dzorshie family and until the resolution of whole is the Asere Mantse, 1st Plaintiff is the acting Asere Mantse. In the face of such assertion and denials issues were joined in the application for directions when among others, this was put down as part of the issues for determination: whether or not the 1st Plaintiff is the acting Asere Mantse?
Will the determination of this issue be a cause or a matter affecting chieftancy? The Courts Act, Act 459, se